Pentecost Needs Paul Reveres ...

[DAII]

Yeah, you're not bitter.

You're very bitter.

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I call a spade a spade. You don't offend me or make me lose a moments rest. You aren't worth it. You are just another in a long line of pseudo-apostolics who want to toss out everything good about the church in order to embrace this sad little "universalist", we're all good little Christians no matter what tripe we believe nonsense.

Sell outs don't offend me enough to warrant me having a grudge. They just sadden me.

And that post was a s true as the day is longh and you know it. You really want to argue that you don't get away with stuff no one else does because admins and mods just accept that Dan is Dan? How many forums do you want to look at where you have done just the same thing? Act like a jerk, put down people rather than opinions and positions, attack the UPC non-stop and yet....you get a pass.

You're smart. We get it. You are anti-traditional Pentecost. We get that too. You are however, never the victim. You earn every ounce of criticism and rebuke...even though you rarely get it.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by John Atkinson

I have no problem with LS. I don't agree with him on a few things but he has the basics down.
"Holy Magic Hair" may be a crock, though I do believe in uncut on women and cut on men. And I am really not sure LS preaches that.

Frankly, that isn't dangerous, off..yes.. What is dangerous is people going around saying that we don't require baptism in Jesus name, that the Holy Ghost comes with any other sign than tongues, that the Book of Acts is just "history" and therefore not profitable for doctrine. That we don't have to live holy and unblameable in his sight, and that grace is a free pass rather than an open door.

There still are thousands of "Paul Reveres" warning against this stuff. We just mostly don't do it here because there really isn't a point.

I never say much about it here, again, whats the point, most folks here have made their mind up and I am not going to debate or try and convince anybody of anything.

That's not true. Sharpen your sword and participate. Many are here for that reason. They may engage your argument, but you have no idea where they are in the struggle with these topics. They've had to many with weak answers tuck tail and throw out the "casting pearls before swine" number or some other offensive personal insult before leaving the discussion. Many times these are they who have an inadequate answer. Sometimes, they are people, like you, who is just frustrated. But your voice is needed.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I call a spade a spade. You don't offend me or make me lose a moments rest. You aren't worth it. You are just another in a long line of pseudo-apostolics who want to toss out everything good about the church in order to embrace this sad little "universalist", we're all good little Christians no matter what tripe we believe nonsense.

Sell outs don't offend me enough to warrant me having a grudge. They just sadden me.

And that post was a s true as the day is longh and you know it. You really want to argue that you don't get away with stuff no one else does because admins and mods just accept that Dan is Dan? How many forums do you want to look at where you have done just the same thing? Act like a jerk, put down people rather than opinions and positions, attack the UPC non-stop and yet....you get a pass.

You're smart. We get it. You are anti-traditional Pentecost. We get that too. You are however, never the victim. You earn every ounce of criticism and rebuke...even though you rarely get it.

Universalist?

One who professes that faith and calling on Jesus exclusively brings salvation is the farthest from a "universalist." I'm not sure why you used that word.

Please correct my "sell out" self of the error in my way. This is a forum and a perfect opportunity to do that.

[TroubleMaker]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Pentecost is doing just fine with LS. As are the conferences he preaches. As are the lives he touches and influences.

I'd say the only potential problem is the clear thorn or bitterness a certain poster seems to have towards him.

Whats that verse about God not even listening to your prayers when you have ought against a brother?

Well, Nightgawker (I believe that's the new name), you've missed a major part of the New Testament. False doctrines and false teachers are maybe the major theme running through the epistles. By your criteria, Paul would have never had a single prayer make it through. Or Jude. My goodness. When there's a nut on the loose like The Stoneman, someone needs to say something. But for the most part, no one does. They (Mangun, Haney, etc.) just keep propping him up for more.

But keep up the creative name-calling!! I'm being greatly entertained by this!!

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Universalist?

One who professes that faith and calling on Jesus exclusively brings salvation is the farthest from a "universalist." I'm not sure why you used that word.

Please correct my "sell out" self of the error in my way. This is a forum and a perfect opportunity to do that.

Universalist as in within Christianity. Everyone is fine no matter what. They're all saved as long as they have "faith".

Not as in the Universalist Church.

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

Well, Nightgawker (I believe that's the new name), you've missed a major part of the New Testament. False doctrines and false teachers are maybe the major theme running through the epistles. By your criteria, Paul would have never had a single prayer make it through. Or Jude. My goodness. When there's a nut on the loose like The Stoneman, someone needs to say something. But for the most part, no one does. They (Mangun, Haney, etc.) just keep propping him up for more.

But keep up the creative name-calling!! I'm being greatly entertained by this!!

You say false doctrine. I say simply a little overstated. Stoneking being maybe a half a degree off of even does not make him a false prophet or a spreader of false doctrine.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Universalist?

One who professes that faith and calling on Jesus exclusively brings salvation is the farthest from a "universalist." I'm not sure why you used that word.

Please correct my "sell out" self of the error in my way. This is a forum and a perfect opportunity to do that.

Maybe he lacks the intellectual capital and verbal arsenal to engage?

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

You say false doctrine. I say simply a little overstated. Stoneking being maybe a half a degree off of even does not make him a false prophet or a spreader of false doctrine.

This is not an indictment against anyone, just a question in response to your remarks...

To what degree does someone have to be "off" to be considered a false prophet?

How "off" does a teaching that is presented as doctrine have to be before it is considered false doctrine?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Barb

This is not an indictment against anyone, just a question in response to your remarks...

To what degree does someone have to be "off" to be considered a false prophet?

How "off" does a teaching that is presented as doctrine have to be before it is considered false doctrine?

good question.

Where do we draw the line?
three steppers?
one steppers?
watching tv?
using the internet?
alcohol?
tobacco?
chocolate?
sugar?
hair length?
sleeve length?
certain colors for clothing?
wearing of animal pelts?
eating meat?
jewelry?

There are differences of opinion among us on all these things.

LS and RR (or whatever her current initials are) can be considered "useful idiots" by the hierarchy because they promote the "uncut hair" doctrine which some in leadership preach.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Sam

LS and RR (or whatever her current initials are) can be considered "useful idiots" by the hierarchy because they promote the "uncut hair" doctrine which some in leadership preach.

Like Count Dooku was to Senator Palpatine.